Today in Supreme Court History: March 10, 1919

3/10/1919: Debs v. United States decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (decided March 10, 1969): police cannot order a demonstration dispersed if it’s the onlookers who are getting violent, not the demonstrators (this was comedian and activist Dick Gregory, fondly remembered at least by me, leading a police-escorted antisegregation demonstration from City Hall to the mayor’s residence, the not-so-fondly remembered Richard J. Daley)

Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (decided March 10, 1919): upholding conviction for conspiracy to obstruct military recruiting even though no specific acts were yet planned (this seems to violate the rule that not only must there be a plan there must be some act “in furtherance of” the conspiracy, but this was World War I; unanimous opinion by Holmes)

Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (decided March 10, 1919): Another Holmes affirmance of an Espionage Act conviction based on allegation of obstruction recruiting. Eugene V. Debs gave a speech saying nice things about socialist comrades who had been convicted for aiding others in evading the draft. Debs was sentenced to ten years for this; due to ill health his sentence was commuted by Harding, who received him at the White House with grace and affection, possibly because Wilson had been so mean in denying commutation.

Shelby v. Guy, 24 U.S. 361 (decided March 10, 1826): If you seize land, publicly possess it, and work it, after a certain period of time (here, five years), you win title by adverse possession. Ha — fooled you! This case holds that if you seize slaves, publicly own them and work them for five years, they become yours. At least if you’re white. (This opinion also illustrates the convention that slaves’ children were not called their children; the term used was “their increase”.)

The Alerta, 13 U.S. 359 (decided March 10, 1815): A dispute over a ship and its 170 slaves journeying from Africa and taken as a prize of war in New Orleans. The details are not important, except to note that all 170 slaves survived the journey. Slaves were in fact, at least by then, tolerably well cared for, about as much as animals are, because they were valuable. The notorious 18-inch lower decks were just for the beginning of the journey; once Africa was out of sight and they couldn’t jump overboard and swim back, they were let up on deck for sun and air. The attractive females were treated best, in exchange for their “goods”. This and many other illuminating facts are in “The Slave Trade” by Hugh Thomas.

Marvin M. Brand Revocable Trust v. United States, 572 U.S. 93 (decided March 10, 2014): federal land grants to railroads in 1875 were for use as railways and created only an easement; once line was abandoned the right-of-way became public property again for sale to private parties; Robert’s opinion is a well-written history of the rise and fall of federal grants to railroads

Cook County, Ill. v. United States ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119 (decided March 10, 2003): qui tam (“private attorney general”) actions can be brought against municipalities because they are “persons” under the False Claims Act (here, scientist sued county hospital for receiving federal grants with false applications) (states can’t be sued qui tam, see Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 2000)

Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (decided March 10, 1986): Miranda waiver effective even though police didn’t tell defendant his sister had gotten him an attorney who was trying to reach him

Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131 (decided March 10, 1969): competing newspapers which combined, pooled profits and ended competition in the local market violated Sherman Act; “failing business” defense not applicable because the lesser-profitable paper was not in danger of going under (the opinion reveals that jointly their profits exploded; this to me means a lot more people were reading newspapers post-Sherman Act violation than before)

Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U.S. 540 (decided March 10, 1902): Illinois statute exempting agricultural and livestock businesses from antitrust was unconstitutional (overruled by Tigner v. Texas, 1940)

[JasonT20]

Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (decided March 10, 1986): Miranda waiver effective even though police didn’t tell defendant his sister had gotten him an attorney who was trying to reach him

Reason #2948 to interpret the Miranda warning to say, "ask for a lawyer and then shut up" whenever they hear it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (decided March 10, 1919): upholding conviction for conspiracy to obstruct military recruiting even though no specific acts were yet planned (this seems to violate the rule that not only must there be a plan there must be some act “in furtherance of” the conspiracy, but this was World War I; unanimous opinion by Holmes)

More precisely, the complaint was that the indictment didn’t allege that the conspirators agreed on which overt acts would be committed. The prosecution did allege and prove overt acts (which aren’t required under most federal conspiracy statutes anyway).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks

[SRG2]

It seems that there are two distinct constitutional jurisprudences in the U:S, one for peacetime and one for wartime.

[Dan Schiavetta]

For sure. And the Court doesn't deny it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" once line was abandoned the right-of-way became public property again for sale to private parties"

The problem is when it wasn't initially public land. Something about it reverting to the initial owner.

"Railbanking" is one way around it, the state owns it for a future railroad, but leases it for a rail trail.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

If this occured under Biden it would be wrong as much of what he does is wrong. If under Carter it would just be silly. If under Clinton it would be a distraction from his own immorality.
Under Linocln it was handled correctly in the Fremont Declaration case.

President Lincoln learned of Frémont's proclamation by reading it in the newspaper. Disturbed by Frémont's actions, Lincoln felt that emancipation was "not within the range of military law or necessity" and that such powers rested only with the elected federal government.